— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 7, 2022
७ एप्रिल, २०२२
"With Musk on the board, the employees said his views on moderation could weaken years-long efforts to make Twitter a place of healthy discourse, and might allow trolling and mob attacks to flourish...."
"When asked for comment, a Twitter spokesperson repeated a statement from Tuesday that the board 'plays an important advisory and feedback role across the entirety of our service,' but daily operations and decisions are made by Twitter's management and employees. 'Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules,' the spokesperson said.
Some employees that Reuters spoke to were not so sure about the company's commitment to this. 'I find it hard to believe (the board) doesn't have influence,' said one employee. 'If that's the case, why would Elon want a board seat?'... 'If Donald Trump was actually rich, he would have liked to have done the same thing but he couldn't afford it. So Elon is doing what Trump would have liked to have done,' said Guidehouse Insights analyst Sam Abuelsamid. 'I wouldn't be surprised' if Twitter restores Trump's account now that Elon owns nearly 10% of the company,' he said."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६३ टिप्पण्या:
Define "healthy discourse".
1 seat on the board means one vote. Talk to Trump about voting numbers.
Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules
yeah! right!
That's WHY The Babylon Bee was terminated; for violent speech (calling a Man, a MAN)
That's WHY people that say they're GOING TO Kill JK Rowlings are Still Active on Twitter.
Impartiality!
They are SO upset they can't censor and ban people who have different thoughts than they do. What a joke they are. Progressives are ruining what's left of the Democrat party, and the Democrats are too dumb to stop them.
"Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules"
What a fucking joke.
"I find it hard to believe (the board) doesn't have influence,' said one employee. 'If that's the case, why would Elon want a board seat?"
Why would anyone want to be a board member? Musk has the biggest reason, 2.89 billion of them.
The board fires people, so they're no exactly powerless in that category.
"Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules,' the spokesperson said."
My question is whether "Twitter" actually believes this. Hard to believe, but people are capable of great self-delusion.
I continue to be skeptical that Musk has any real leverage. Hope I am pleasantly surprised.
So moderation weakens healthy discourse?
Moderation is bad?
These people are living in Bizarro-world...
Where did twitter employees get the idea that they are not beholden to the board of directors?
I hope Elon ends up buying a majority of the stock and starts some wholesale employee replacing. Or shuts it down and starts another one. Twitter is a cancer on the body politic of the world.
A place of “healthy discourse”? It’s a sewer!
"healthy" = woke
Paul Singer, the current CEO and jack dorsey are trying to hide behind these "woke employees". These little goofs have zero power and are entirely replacable. If Musk can change twitter's policy they will "get unwoke or be broke". Plenty of people would LOVE To work at twitter and NOT enforce Leftwing censorship.
Twitter banned Scott Ritter for disagreeing with some Ukrainian Government propaganda. Never forget that TWitter banned anyone who posted about the NY Post TRUE article about Hunter Biden's laptop. They wanted biden to win and censored anyone who hurt that goal.
Readering said...
1 seat on the board means one vote. Talk to Trump about voting numbers.
As somebody once said, it isn't the votes that count but who is counting the votes.
Board membership is important because it allows for access to information. Questions asked by a board member must be answered. This leads to accountability. For us in the general public, that is the value of a free-speech advocate on the board. Especially one who is self appointed due to actual ownership as opposed to a window dressing appointment a la the Theranos board.
“So Elon is doing what Trump would have…”
All roads lead to Trump.
"So Elon is doing what Trump would have liked to have done,' said Guidehouse Insights analyst Sam Abuelsamid. 'I wouldn't be surprised' if Twitter restores Trump's"
So what? Self-induced hysteria is bad enough. Demanding that everyone else share it is truly insane.
When you say "healthy discourse" the last word that comes to my mind is 'Twitter'. I suspect I'm not alone in this.
Twitter: A cesspool of far-leftwing political fascism and narcissistic behavior.
'Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules,' the spokesperson said.
Nobody believes this trash. They make rules that ban true statements of fact by calling them hate speech. They ban political opinions by labeling them disinformation. They work at the direction of the government to censor ideas and facts the government doesn't want people to know about. Surprising to no one, conservatives keep getting banned for telling the truth and sharing their opinions.
"With Musk on the board,..his views on moderation...might allow...mob attacks to flourish...."
My ellipses aside, let that sink in. Someone reported that, as if people weren't routinely already subjected to mob attacks, as if Twitter wasn't already the supreme technological platform for mob behavior. Indeed, as if the tem "Twitter mob" itself didn't exist.
Strange how freaked out the collective left are over the idea of Trump being back on Twitter.
The mere Idea sends them into a Soviet mind crime speech crime tailspin.
'1 seat on the board means one vote. Talk to Trump about voting numbers.'
Musk has incredible worldwide influence.
Not all votes are equal.
Musk on the board is a perfect place to question and force management controls that are so lacking in social media companies. They hire employees who maliciously flag content causing problems for users. If Twitter is to moderate, that moderation should be Twitter policy, not random employees harassing users or sneaking in code in the algorithm. And really, how does Twitter management argue against them being the ones making the decisions? Not some random programmer, or "moderator".
How come leftists are allowed to insert thoughts into Musk's head?
No wonder Muck wants to tell them to piss off.
Define "healthy discourse".
"My way or the highway."
They are right about management running the day to day.
But the board tells management how to do it. Sometimes in a lot of detail and microsupervision, other times in broad general outlines. The board does this on behalf of the owners of the company, not for their own benefit. (Though some board members are owners as well, like Musk)
Musk is only one vote, true. Out of 11 total. But there may be others who generally agree with him and still others that he can convince to agree with him.
He doesn't have to convince them that Twitter should support free speech because it is a good thing philosophically. If they voted based on that they would be bad directors. Possibly liable to lawsuit.
The ONLY task of the board is to increase shareholder value. Not profits, not popularity, not users, etc except as they impact shareholder value.
So all he has to convince them of is that free speech will increase shareholder value. If he can convince them of that, they are basically required by law to vote in favor.
(Yeah, I've simplified. So sue me)
John LGBTQBNY Henry
"healthy discourse" = ideological enforcement by neo-fascists.
'Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules'
Impartiality. Right. Progs just can't help themselves.
Of course, the real tell in these sorts of comments is the blithe assumption that everyone who matters thinks like them, and that they can do what they want. Musk's investment bursts their bubble a bit.
I’m fascinated at how utterly terrified progressives are of Free Speech. We definitely live in interesting times.
...his views on moderation could weaken years-long efforts to make Twitter a place of healthy discourse, and might allow trolling and mob attacks to flourish....
His views would cause mobs attacks to flourish, but they'd be woke mob attacks that would make the left look even shitty than they already do. So win-win!
The Twitterazi speak truth through projection. #HateLovesAbortion should be a community guideline and warning.
"Not all votes are equal."
With almost 10% of the stock, he could crash the price of it if he decided to dump his shares. That's a pretty good sized club to have at a board meeting. Enough to get a CEO fired if he gets pissed off enough.
Moderation is bad?
Moderation means an end to Diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), Inequity, and Exclusion policy. Moderation means curbing faithful backing of Mengele mandates and other trans-scientific actions and beliefs. Moderation tempers semantic games. Moderation implies religious (e.g. "ethical") temperance. Moderation mitigates the progress of irregularities, fraud, misinformation, and disinformation, where democracy dies at The Twilight Fringe. It means an end to publisher and platform conflation, the audacity to dream of aborting the "burden", and have her, too. Too long they have played with a double-edged scalpel.
Gonna be lit like a blunt.
"With Musk on the board, the employees said his views on moderation could weaken years-long efforts to make Twitter a place of healthy discourse ...
The immediate threat to healthy discourse is that Musk might end the suspension of Babylon Bee.
"Some employees that Reuters spoke to ... "
That's a sample I'm sure we can count on.
At the end of the most recently reported year, the microblogging company employed 5,500 people, up from 3,920 people in the previous year.
Statista
1 seat on the board means one vote.
Nope.
Whoever has questions about the workings/authority of a corporate board, direct those to Hunter Biden. His speciality is "corporate governance." Snorting blow off the boardroom table or getting a Lewinsky from a stripper under the table, he really puts the "douche" in fiduciary.
Healthy discourse--=but only of the sort that these little twits approve. GMAFB
For the Twitter spokesman to assert that "the board plays an important advisory and feedback role across the entirety of our service,' but daily operations and decisions are made by Twitter's management and employees" suggests that Twitter's corporate governance has been usurped by folks who are unaware of the standard corporate chain of command, as taught in law schools around the country. Broad policy is the province of the Board, with which the daily decisions must conform.
And, further, Mr. Musk is a minority shareholder who must be tended to, lest intra-corporate shareholder dispute(s) develop which could leave the company adrift without seasoned leadership.
Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules,'
I admit. I laughed out loud on that one.
Trolling? On Twitter? Next thing you'll try telling me there's gambling at Rick's.
Musk tweets well.
the employees said his views on moderation could weaken years-long efforts to make Twitter a place of healthy discourse,
My, that is some impressive doublespeak right there!
Jefferson's Revenge said...
Board membership is important because it allows for access to information.
Such as the algorithm and the internal documentation as to why this person or that person was banned. Musk now has access to it all.
But another leverage is the ability to ask questions of senior executives during board meetings. The right questions illuminate, for less perceptive board members, the dark spaces inside the company.
Leland
One board seat gets one board vote. That is separate entirely from a stockholder voting his shares on matters that come for a shareholder vote. Two separate things.
Why do they continue to allow Elon Musk to post on their platform? They are in charge of daily operations. Pull his ticket!
The current employees are into feelings, and Musk is into structure.
An activist could read The Solid Gold Cadillac, old lady takes over company with proxy solicitation. Though strictly that involves tossing out the directors and installing your own directors.
Three billion dollars is a rounding error against what is at stake in US elections and foreign policy.
"Twitter's corporate governance has been usurped by folks who are unaware of the standard corporate chain of command, "
Not a lawyer, but isn't that "ultra vires"?
"... could weaken years-long efforts to make Twitter a place of healthy discourse..."
Twitter is a lot of things. A place of healthy discourse is not one of them. It is unlikely that will ever happen. One sided banning is not likely to help.
Leland said...
1 seat on the board means one vote.
Nope.
**************
That site speaks of shareholder voting rights, not the duties and powers of Board Members.
Musk is not quite a "principal shareholder" under SEC definitions, but he's close:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/principal-shareholder.asp
Bottom line: he's the LARGEST shareholder, which gives him a lot of clout.
The management at Twatter is clown car.
“committed to impartiality”. What a laugh and a lie.
"and might allow trolling and mob attacks to flourish...."
Has this person been on Twitter lately... Oh, he means "from people I don't agree with."
The striking thing in those excerpts is that the people who work at Twatter don't seem to understand what the board actually does, and the power that it does have. Musk probably won't be able to do much with only 10% of the company, but the truth is he could buy a majority stake if he wanted to- his Tesla stake is worth far more than Twatter- and then he could fire the entire management team and anyone that defies him.
Twitter's problem is that it gets easier and easier to ban people. There have been as many banned so far this year as there were during the first five years it existed.
At first people were banned for supporting terrorism. Now, saying "mean" things is akin to terrorism, and saying something that goes against the woke way of thinking will get you banned.
"1 seat on the board means one vote."
Unless common shares at Twitter are closely held and Musk bought only non-voting preferred shares (which it seems he did not) then it's like a parliamentary system. Musk has 9.3% of the votes and can collect proxies or enter coalitions with others. Perhaps he is now arbitraging up the other 5% he can grab now. He has rights to all but the most secret information, He can ask for studies on how banning affects the value of company stock and can force divisive votes that will take up energy if the whole board votes against him all the time. Like a Carl Icahn.
Interesting that the thing they fear the most is Trump's account being reinstated.
Isn't it strange that those who think Twitter is beyond reproach and even handed are having a complete melt down at the prospect of some much needed transparency? If they are doing everything right, why all the panic?
>>An activist could read The Solid Gold Cadillac
I assume you're referring to a book I'm not familiar with. There was, however, a movie version with Judy Holliday as the "old lady" and Paul Douglas as the retired company founder she recruits to defeat the evil cabal. The movie was on TCM a week or two ago. I'd seen it before, but not for quite a while.
--gpm
"a Twitter spokesperson"
A brainless flack with a tolerance for mindlessly and endlessly repeating rote nonsense.
Musk's tweet is the best thing I have ever seen on Twitter.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा